Partly allowed

B.Teekaram Singh v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

Telangana HC9 Oct 2023CRLRC/110/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Criminal Revision bench dismissed the revision petition challenging conviction for cheating under IPC 420, upholding concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts, but reduced sentence to time already undergone.

What did the court decide?

Sentencing reduced to period of detention already undergone; Criminal Revision Case dismissed on other counts.

B.Teekaram Singh Vs the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated. 24t}1t2012 in CRLRC. Mp_ NO: 167 OF 2012 in Crl.R.C No. 110 OF 2012

¶2

[32ee ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 110 OF 2012

¶8

criminal Revision case fired under section 397 and 401 of crpc to set aside the Judgment vide dt. 15-1 1-2010 in cc.No.117l200a pass"o-uy tnu viii Additional .^{chief MetroporitanMagistrate, Hyderabad} and as confirmed bv lrdgment^{dt. 29-12-2011in C-rlA No 47412010passed} by the Speciat Judge fo'r Economic Offences cum Vllt Additional Mbtropolitan Sessions Jr;;;, ;i Hyderabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

B Teekaram Singh, S/o..late Seetal Singh, Occ: Business R/o 3_1_405, Nimboliadda Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERYA1

¶12

AN D

¶13

The State of AP through the public prosecutor High court of Ap Hyderabad 2. Kura.Balaram, S/o late K.Rajaiah Govt Emptoyee No 2-3_tO3lBtS0t93, Quadri Bagh Amberpet, Hyd-erabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶15

i Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S. SUNITHA for SRI VIVEK JAIN

¶16

i^Counsel for the Respondent NO.l: SRt VTZARATH ALl, ASSISTANT

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2 : SRl. p RADHIVE REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.11O oF 20t2

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

The prcsent Criminal Revision Case is filed alirlriei,ed br. the judgment datecl 15.11.2o10 in c.c.No.r 17 or 2o06 o. the fire of the Court of learned VIII Additional Chief Mctropolitan Magistrate, I{yderabad (for short,^,,tl-re appellarl Court,,) in confirming the judgment dated 29.12.2O11 in Cr.l.A.No.474 ol 20 10 on the lile of the learned Spccial Jr-rdge f.r Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court,,).

¶23

Heard Ms. Sunitha, learned counsel representr ng petitioner, Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant public prosecul or appearing for respondent state and Mr. p. Radhive Reddy, learncd counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶24

The brief lacts of the complaint are that respondcnt No.2/ complainant rvas introduced to petitioner/ accused No. 1 by his vendor Smt. Govindamma in agreement of sale d,atecl 2T.OS.2006 of plot No.98, admeasuring 12S.10 sq yrds, situated at Sy No.21O, al Patel Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad. In that agreement oI sale accused No.1 was also zL witness.

¶25

-!!E-x;- .q'\ ::i!i .. ,'r

¶26

¶27

Subsequently,^{respondentNo'2 came to know thaL petittonerwas} the vendor to the^{agreementof sale vrith Govindammawith} regard lo the^{aboveplot. On enquiry,respondent No'2 came to} know that the^{open ptot sold by petitioner to Govindammais in} the name of third^{party and thc petitioner q'as not in possessior-r} of the same at^{any poir-It of time but pretendedas if he had title to} the plot.

¶28

Thereby, respondent^{No 2pursuadcdthe petitioner to} re-purchase his^{plot. The othcr accused Nos 2 to 4 werethe} friends of petitioner.^{Pctitioner entered into agleement of sale} with complainant^{on 23.Oa.20O6for purchaseofthe above} mentioned plot^{for Rs.5,B0,OOO/-andpaid token amount towards} advance and^{promised respondentNo 2 that he would pay the} balanceamountofRs.4,25,oo0/-attheearliest.Petitionerfailed to pay the balance^{amount despite of repeateddemandsFurther'} petitioner entered into^{a bond on 16.0320O7 promisingto pay} the balance amount^{by 14.O5.2007.Respondent No'2 sent a legal} notice to petitioner^{on 01.O6.2O07for recovery of the said} amount. But in^vain.

¶29

When respondent^{No.2demandedlor payment of balance} sale consideration, the^{petitioner showed him the lald beneath} -

¶30

Chaderghat Bridge in Sy No.224, admeasurinq i77 sq yrds arld entered into a notarized sale deed shou,ing all thr: lir-rk doctrments nnd stated that he got that land as a share in tl-re joint propcrtv of his father. Later, respondent No.2 came to l<nou thiLt tl-re said land u,as a go\rernment land and the petitioner had no title to the said land and the petitioner cheated him. Accused Nos.2 ar-rd 3 prepared the fake documents in collusion ancl cornir.ance u ith petitioner. Accused No.4 delivered the saicl documents to respondent No.2 knowing fully well that the documents were not genuine. Further, accused Nos.2 to 4 represerrted lhemselves as real estate dealers, brokers, commission agents ancl carried out such activities to defraud respondent No.2, u,herebr respondent No.2 was put to suffer huge financial loss. The petitioner thereby executed the agreement of sale by suppressing the flau, in the title and possession and executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 on 31. 1O.2007.

¶31

The trial Court vide judgment dated 15.11.2O l0 in C.C.No. 1 17 of 2008 found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 42O of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous irnprisonment for two years and pay a fine ol Rs.2,000/In delault of payment of fine amount, he shall unciergo simple

¶32

re \ 7Si

¶33

¶34

imprisonment^{for a period of six months The remartd period of} the petilioner, if any,^{shall be set off under Sectton 428 of I'P C'} Aggrieved thereby,^{the petitioner preferredanappeal' The} appellate Court^{vide judgment daLcd 29 12'2O11ir-r Crl A No'474} of 2O 10 dismissed the^{appeal bv confirmingthe judgment passed} by the trial Court in^{conr,ictinghim for the offer]ce undcr Section} 42O of I.P.C. However,^{reduced the setltence oi imprisonment} from two years to six^{months b-v confirming the fine amount of} Rs.2,O00/ . Assailing^{the same, the present Revison'}

¶35

Learned counsel for^{the petitiorlcrcotrtcndedthat the} allegations made in the^{complaintwrerepurely civil in nature and} rio not disclose the^{offenceundcr Section 42O of I P'C' He stated} that for breach of contract,^{a criminalliability cannotbe fastened} and respondent No.2 '*'as^{having alternative and efficacious} remedy of filing a suit^{forspecific performance 'He further} contended that respondent^{No.2 is not a bonafide purchaseras} any prudent man is expected^{to have sufficientknowledgethat} the land beneath^{Chaderghat bridge would be a public property'} As accused Nos.2 to 4^{were already discharged, he contended} that, the trial Court ought^{to have discharged the petitioneras} well. In support of his^{contention, he relied r.pon the decision-s of}

)

I I I

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalip Kaur and others Vs. Jagnar Singh and another^t and Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bihar and another2. Thcrelrrre , sceks to allou, the Revision

¶40

Learnerl counsel for respondent No.2 as rvell as the lezu-ned Assistant Pulrlic Prosecutor submitted that the appellate Court, by appreciating the oral and documentary evidencc' available on record in proper perspective, rightly passed the impugnecl judgment. Therefore, submits that the interferenc:e ltom this Court is unwarranted ancl seeks to dismiss the Rerrisior-t

¶41

On behalf of respondent No.2, the trial Court cxamined PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.Pl to P8. On behalf of the petitioner none were examined and no document s,as marked After appreciating the oral and documentary <'r,idencc and relying on thc decision reported in 2009 (2\ ALD (Crl.) 163^(AP), the trial Court passed the^judgment dated 15.11.2O10 in C.C.No.ll7 of 2008. In the appeal preferred, the appellate Court observed that petitioner attested on Ex P1 arrd not onlv that, in furtherance of Ex Pl he continr-red to enter into ein agreement with respondcnt No.2 under Exs.P3, P4 and P7. The dishoncst r r (2oo9(20oo)4^)l 4 Stpreme Suprem( Court Court Cases Cascs 696168

¶42

¶43

wals and fraudulent intention on the part of pctitioner conclusively established beyond all reasonablc doubt from^the conduct of petitioner, circumstances of the casc, oral cvidence o[ PWs. 1 and 2 and the documentary evidcnce of Exs. P2 to PB and therefore, the appellate Court vide^judgment daLcd 29.12.2O11 ln Cr1.A.No.474 of 20lO dismissed the appeal b1' confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court in convicting him for the offence under Section 42O of I.P.C. However, reduced^the sentence of imprisonment from two ycars to six months^by confirming the fine amount of Rs.2,0OO/-

¶44

¶45

A perusal of the record shows that thc Revision^{pcrtains to} the year, 20 12 and this Court vide order daled^{24 .O | .2O 72} granted interim suspension of the sentence alone^pending Revisign and released him on bail on executing^{a personalbond} for a sum of Rs.10,0OO/- with two sureties for^a like^{sum each to} the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶46

I 1. In the present case on hand, both the Courts^have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty of the^offences under alleged offences, which finding, in my^{consideredview,} does not call for interference of this Court in exercise^{of revisional} jurisdictionr:nder Section 397 Cr.P.C.

¶47

Therc zr-e no grounds much less valid grouncls to interfcre with tl're well considered judgment passed by the appellate Cour-t and accordingl-r,, this Revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶48

Hon,ever', as thc petitioner, sulfered mental agonv anrl hardship durrng the course of litigation before the t.r.ial Court as well as the irppellate Court, the sentence impose d npon th c petitioner is hereby reduced to the period of detention alreadv undergone by him under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶49

Except Lhe above modification, in all other zrspects, thc Criminal Revisron Case stands dismissed

¶50

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶51

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKS MI DEPUTY REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

E SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The Vlll Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magrstrate,Hyderabad}

¶57

The Special Judge for Economic^{Offencescum Vlll Additional Metropolitan} Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad

¶58

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourtfor the Stateof Telanganaat} , 4. Hyderabad One CC to It//S. [OUT]SUNITHA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to SRl. P^{RADHIVE REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶60

Two CD Copies

K kamAD I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911012023

ORDER

i i I CRLRC.No.110 of 2012 I t

¶66

I e STA r e
)
e
cf, ? 7 N0 \l ztn C)
t
t t) c ?T\T c

¶67

I DISMISSING THE CRLRC

¶68

"i$

B.Teekaram Singh v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Teekaram Singh v. the State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Pramod Kumar, Nampally, Hyderabad Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and 2 Otrs

Peruri Santhosh, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District Vs the State of A.P. Rep.by Pp., High Court, Hyderabad and Anr.

Mohammed Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

P.Nagaraju Vs the State of Ap., through the P.P and 3 Others

Gobba Ravinder Reddy, R.R.District Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Pp., Hyderabad

Mohammed Amjad Kahn Vs the State of A.P.